Friday, May 18, 2007

News From Canada

From the Globe and Mail:

The teenage pregnancy rate in Canada has hit an all-time low and the teen abortion rate has fallen to its lowest level in more than a decade, according to a new report.

The number of unwanted pregnancies among adolescents and young adults has fallen principally because they are using birth control, said Alex McKay, research co-ordinator at the Sex Information and Education Council of Canada, and author of the study.

While the pregnancy rate is falling, sexually transmitted infections such as chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis are soaring among young people, and that points to poor sex education, Linda Capperauld, executive director of the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health, said in an interview.

"We continue to focus on unintended pregnancy, but we're neglecting to give young people the tools to ensure their long-term sexual health," she said.

Ms. Capperauld said that oral contraceptives (commonly referred to as the Pill) remain the birth control of choice among teenage girls and that they and their partners are neglecting to use condoms to protect themselves from infections.

You can see why it is important to have good sex education. The pill keeps you from getting pregnant, but the condom also blocks microbes. We're on track to do the right thing in our county.

33 Comments:

Andrew B. said...

Eve Gartner of Planned Parenthood was on my campus a few weeks ago talking about the so-called "partial birth" abortion ban. Afterwards I asked her about legal precedent in other countries because Justice Kennedy is increasingly interested in foreign law as precedent (a decent respect to the opinions of humankind never hurt anyone!). She said that they looked at international law, but there wasn't any that was particularly relevant. Why? They basically don't have that many abortions in Europe! Why? Because they have comprehensive sexual education! Want to stop abortion (and, like you point out, protect public health)? Then support comprehensive sex ed!

Almost all developed nations allow abortion. Since most European countries have legalized abortion, something else must account for Europe's abortion rate being lower than the US's. That something else is comprehensive sex education.

My "information for life" line was not meant for me. That line was meant for you (1st anon) and other "pro-life" advocates. I don't make arguments to convince myself.

Anon 1 says that "making the taking of innocent life illegal tends to reduce that type of activity." Yes, that's true in terms of the number of procedures performed by doctors on the books. But what about 'off the books' procedures? Worse, what about dangerous abortions done with clothes hangers by unqualified and unlicensed individuals? What about living, breathing babies abandoned in dumpsters? What about women whose lives are threatened by dangerous pregnancies? What do you do about that?

There are many ways to go about making public policy. One way is to teach an abstinence-only curriculum and outlaw abortion. Yet I happen to live in the real world where that does not work. Instead, when we can fix all of these problems by having comprehensive sexual education, isn't that the easiest and best way to go? Sit the students down in a classroom and teach them about this stuff! In Canada and in the EU they have realized that comprehensive sexual education vastly decreases the number of abortions and the incidence of STDs/STIs. If you don't want your kid to sit through that lesson because of your moral beliefs, that's perfectly fine! But let the rest of the students to get what they are in school for: a proper and thorough education. Look around: comprehensive sexual education works.

Now that the left has ascended to power in Washington, San Fran Nan and her munchkins have declared that adding "sexual orientation" to existing federal "hate crimes" law will rise to the top of the congressional priority list.

But wait. Why not first pass a "nice crimes" law, at the federal level and also in some states?

After all, selecting some crimes for special designation as markers of "hate" is helpful, but only if we first recognize other "non-hate" crimes as the nice ones.

For instance, I would nominate all nice murders, where the offender expresses tender sentiments toward the victim before bludgeoning him/her to death. There's also the nice, reasonable spouse abuse crimes, where a husband was set off because he had a bad day, or because his woman looked twice at another man. His self-esteem was low and he had a good reason. Outside the orange jumpsuits, these are really great guys.

(Column continues below)

Of course, the ACLU will help us here, because they are the perpetual defenders of "nice" people who perform nice crimes, like sodomy (back when it was a crime) or pedophilia. Remember the 1997 case in Massachusetts of 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley, who was the victim of a grotesque sexual molestation and murder by two men. The ACLU defended the pedophile group NAMBLA in a subsequent suit. Sex, after all, is a nice thing, and people have their needs. Perhaps it shouldn't go as far as murder, especially of 10-year-olds, but I'm sure the ACLU can help us understand how to think about this.

The ACLU also defends the nice crime of obscenity distribution, which benefits us all by providing images of group sex involving 13- and 14-year-olds, animals and so on. The freedom to view such material develops the highest and noblest of character traits in our citizenry.

A judge in Asheville, N.C., recently sentenced child porn producer Andrew Douglas Reed to a mere 10-month sentence, in recognition of the "nice" nature of his crime. Some of the pornography involved kids as young as 6 engaging in sex acts with adults or other children. Let's hear it for all the local folks who spoke up on Reed's behalf, especially the fellow members of his "welcoming" Unitarian Universalist congregation. We should especially thank the lenient judge, a Democrat, who recognized right off that this was really a nice man performing a nice crime who didn't deserve 80-some years in jail. The kids involved will surely recover, someday.

I don't know that rape would fit into the nice crime category, except in those cases where the rapist keeps a memento from his victim – a lock of hair or an article of clothing. This signifies respect and affection, don't you think? Then that could be "nice." Interviews with rape victims might shed some light.

Another nice crime is when a Muslim or well-informed college student marches in a parade or a demonstration in the U.S., and because of our free speech laws is able to call for the extermination of the nation of Israel, or of Jews, or of all infidels in general, or even "death to America." Oh, wait, that's not a crime, unless we still – (yawn) – punish people for sedition or treason.

But if it were, it would be a nice one, because America, Israel, Christians and all other nations and faiths are responsible for everything bad that has ever happened to Muslims. This would make a great teaching example for FBI and law enforcement "hate crimes" training funded by the Department of Justice. It would illustrate how an officer can identify what are appropriate thoughts (those that have good reasons behind them, like anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and anti-American opinions) vs. those that are bad and evil, like believing that homosexuality or Islamofascism are wrong. Those opinions are "hateful," according to the important people who decide these things.

Local police officers, based on the federal 1990 Hate Crime Statistics Act, are required to conduct interviews when a crime is committed against a homosexual to find out "why" the offender committed the crime. Victims who are window-washers, stamp collectors, vegans or blues musicians wouldn't get this courtesy even if the actual crime is the same, say, an act of theft. But a homosexual does. If the offender has a negative ("homophobic") opinion, or if he/she added a homosexual insult to the injury, that crime becomes a statistic, counted as part of a miniscule-but-predicted-to-grow "epidemic" of "hate" crimes against homosexuals.

Most of these are non-violent crimes like intimidation or vandalism, but they surely signal a Threat From The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. Take the 1998 murder of homosexual Matthew Shepard in Wyoming. Even though it seemed to be a drug deal gone bad, Katie Couric quickly blamed the "hate" of Christians, particularly Focus on the Family. With such special insight, one wonders why she didn't point to Martin Luther, the Apostle Paul and maybe even the Gaither Brothers as well.

Such crimes need to be carefully tracked, the offenders and all their allies or potential allies interrogated, with extra penalties for even daring to commit a crime while holding, or seeming to hold, the wrong beliefs. To stop at simply punishing the crime would be, well, insensitive to "hate." How much better for everyone, even the victim, if one is robbed or murdered while nice views are held by the felon.

The categories of "hate" in that 1990 statistics law enabled the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program of the No Child Left Behind Act to set aside millions of dollars for "anti-bias" and "safe schools" lessons for school children about what were now called hate crimes. Pleas from pro-family leaders were ignored, and it's a good thing. Many of these programs, unbeknownst to parents, tell children that having the wrong opinion about homosexuality is just as bad as hating people because of skin color. Negative opinions about homosexuality apparently lead to violence, or at least this is the theory that will be proven just as soon as that "epidemic" of hate crimes unfolds.

In the meantime, such opinions in the young must be quickly corrected. Federal and state education departments fund such lessons now, even though there's not yet a federal hate crimes law involving sexual orientation with penalties in place.

Incorrect opinions about religion – especially those favorable to Christianity or Judaism – are also dangerous. It's amazing how this view seems to go hand in hand with acceptance of "gay" lifestyles. But it's good that those in charge of nice opinions monitor all these things together.

Thanks to that 1990 statistics law, we know the correct definition of a "hate" crime, as opposed to all those "nice" crimes out there. And I'm sure the new Democrat majority, backed up by their trial lawyer friends, will help us with further categories, labels and stereotypes, so we know what "nice" beliefs to hold.

Wow. This right-wing rant (posted on line at http://www.missionamerica.com/) is a great example of hatred that tries to disguise itself as something else. Starting with Ms. Harvey's use of a disrepectful name for the first female speaker of the House of Representatives all the way down to her disdain for ""anti-bias" and "safe schools" lessons for school children...," Ms. Harvey's scorn for those who do not believe exactly as she does seeps through. Ms. Harvey, who holds a BA in English and leads MissionAmerica.com to battle against homosexuality, neopaganism, witchcraft, bisexuality, "feminist theology/goddess worship," "compromised Christianity," and to be a "witness to a pagan nation," apparently prefers biased and unsafe schools for our children.

Her paper oozes with hate but as an American, I understand she has the right to express her views. The same Constitutional Amendment that protects Ms. Harvey's right to spew her hatred also protects "a Muslim or well-informed college student [who] marches in a parade or a demonstration in the U.S." She apparently doesn't comprehend that our Freedom of Speech means there is equal protection for each of us to express our opinions. It's only when hate leads to actions that cause harm that a hate crime occurs.

Anon, you forgot to copy and paste the special offers at the bottom of the page.

Members of the astronomy department at Iowa State University admit Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez's belief that science points to an intelligent designer influenced their decision to deny him tenure.

Gonzalez, an astronomer, professor at the university and author of The Privileged Planet, does not teach about intelligent design in his university courses. Research and advocacy for the theory are done on his own time.

Eli Rosenberg, chairman of the Department of Physics and Astronomy, told World Magazine that Gonzalez's book was a factor. Professor Curtis Struck said he "includes some things in his astronomy resumé that other people regard as taking a coincidence too far," referring to Gonzalez's arguments for intelligent design.

Gonzalez has an impressive list of professional achievements at Iowa State. He has authored 68 peer-reviewed scientific articles – 350 percent of the department requirement – as well as a college-level astronomy textbook published by Cambridge University Press. He also spearheaded research that led to the discovery of two planets, and helped build technology to discover planets outside of the solar system.

"I was surprised and a little depressed," Gonzalez said. "I almost decided not to turn in an appeal, but several friends convinced me to do so. This might have precedent, so it was important for me to go through it for the sake of others who might go through this in the future."

Another article thoughtfully supplied by Anon, this time from the Focus on the Family's Citizen Link website.

http://www.citizenlink.org/CLBriefs/A000004656.cfm

The fact is that Dr. Gonzalez is not only a professor at Iowa State Universitiy. He's also a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, which is using his denial of tenure at ISU as a fundraising plea to the faithful. ID is religion, not science. The Discovery Institute apparently needs the funds to they can lose another case like Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District.

"The fact is that Dr. Gonzalez is not only a professor at Iowa State Universitiy. He's also a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, which is using his denial of tenure at ISU as a fundraising plea to the faithful."

When someone is treated unfairly, the persecutors run the risk it will backfire on them. Irrelevant.

"ID is religion, not science."

Dr. Gonzalez, a highly credentialed scientist, disagrees (although he hasn't taught it in class). Another of the numerous people that TTF believe don't exist: Scientists who have studied the universe deeply enough to have realized a sublime truth:

it was planned.

Marxism is fine on the campus, just not belief in a Creator. I guess this is what we mean by "intellectual freedom".

First of all, as I said before, it is impolite to post a comment that is not related to the post topic. If you have an interest in discussing all of these articles you find, do so on your own blog. This forum is dedicated to discussing issues related to sexual education in Montgomery County Public Schools. Of course, if Jim posts a topic related to intelligent design, feel free to comment on that particular post. This is common blog etiquette.

2) A scientific theory is an explanation strongly supported by evidence. Believing that there is something greater out there behind everything is about faith. Equating faith and science demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of science, which may be one of the reasons Dr. Gonzales was denied tenure. Moreover, needing evidence of God devalues faith. Faith is about believing in the face of everything and anything. (Incidentally, I personally know many deeply religious men and women who are highly respected astrophysicists.)

"A scientific theory is an explanation strongly supported by evidence. Believing that there is something greater out there behind everything is about faith."

Unless, of course, there is evidence supporting this belief. Evidence in the form of design features of life and the universe.

"Equating faith and science demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of science, which may be one of the reasons Dr. Gonzales was denied tenure."

I don't see any evidence that Dr. Gonzales did that. Noting that scientific evidence seems to confirm his faith is not the same as equating the two. Especially when he played along with the establishment and never mentioned these things in class.

Hate to say it, but I think if it were up to you, Einstein and Newton would be excluded from tenure. You should read some scientific biographies. Most of the great scientists of history were motivated to enter the field by a desire to know more about God by studying his creation.

Saying that something "seems" to have a been created in an unknowable way by an unobservable, non-measurable being is hokum. Researchers who investigate and report hokum should not attain tenure at institutions of higher learning.

"Saying that something "seems" to have a been created in an unknowable way by an unobservable, non-measurable being is hokum. Researchers who investigate and report hokum should not attain tenure at institutions of higher learning."

Anon, my friend, you are now contradicting yourself as well as ignoring my arguments. Kudos to you!

You earlier responding to the quote that "ID is religion, not science": "Dr. Gonzalez, a highly credentialed scientist, disagrees"

Me: "Equating faith and science demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of science, which may be one of the reasons Dr. Gonzales was denied tenure."

You: "I don't see any evidence that Dr. Gonzales did that."

First, Dr. Gonzalez thinks that intelligent design is science and then there's no evidence that he does? (And there's no "s" in Gonzalez.)

You write that Dr. Gonzales "never mentioned these things in class." Tenure is not solely or even primarily about teaching ability; it is about a faculty member's academic stature. Whether he taught about intelligent design in class is irrelevant.

You: "Hate to say it, but I think if it were up to you, Einstein and Newton would be excluded from tenure. You should read some scientific biographies. Most of the great scientists of history were motivated to enter the field by a desire to know more about God by studying his creation."

This is a preposterous analysis of my position on your part. I have demonstrated that science does not preclude religion. I have mentioned my personal affiliation with leading astrophysicists who are deeply religious. I certainly think that these righteous, moral, upstanding people deserve tenure. And the same applies for Einstein and Newton. It is one thing to believe in God or to be inspired by God's creation. It is quite another to degrade both science and religion by saying that intelligent design is science.

You: "Estimable and credentialed scholars disagree with your sophisticated assessment." Setting aside the fact that there are no truly estimable and credentialed scholars who would proffer elements of their faith as scientific fact, my problem with this is in two parts. For one, you simultaneously attack academics and use them for support. Try sticking to one side, please. Second, you ask me for evidence and provide none yourself! Which "estimable and credentialed scholars" are you talking about?! Please stop proffering generalities as facts.

I am trying to do my best to explain my position honestly and openly to you. You are trying to make a political/religious point. When you climb down off of your soapbox, let me know. I would be thrilled to talk with you if you actually want to debate the subject. I would love to discuss any of this in person with you, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you either need your anonymous cover or that you don't live anywhere near Montgomery County.

Intelligent design says basically that if we see a pattern we can't explain, we assume a designer (i.e. a Deity of some sort). That's an intrinsically anti-science idea. Science says that if we see a pattern we can't explain, we do further investigations. Essentially different ideas. The former is religion, the latter is science.

Truth is discovered in three ways. By empirical observation, by rationalization and by revelation. No matter what way you first discover truth, you must test it by the other two or you'll mislead yourself.

"Truth is discovered in three ways. By empirical observation, by rationalization and by revelation. No matter what way you first discover truth, you must test it by the other two or you'll mislead yourself."

A very Quaker kind of notion: are you a member of the Society of Friends? Do you believe in continuing revelation, or do you think it stopped with the NT?

Anonymous, Einstein didn't believe in god. He used the term metaphorically to refer to his admiration of the natural world:

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”

“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems.”

“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”

Albert Einstein, upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, April 24, 1921, published in the New York Times, April 25, 1929; from Einstein: The Life and Times, Ronald W. Clark, New York: World Publishing Co., 1971, p. 413; also cited as a telegram to a Jewish newspaper, 1929, Einstein Archive 33-272, from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 204.

Anonymous, the idea that the bible is "revealed" knowledge is just plain silly. There's no more evidence for it being the truth than there is for the Koran being revealed knowledge, or Hinduism's holy text being revealed knowledge. You have no more reason to believe in the bible than you do to believe in those other holy texts.

I am upset by the lack of respect here for religion. Religion need not lead to despicable acts such as blowing up abortion clinics or dragging a gay man from a pickup truck until he dies. Religion need not challenge people for being themselves. I have no problem calling certain "religious" people out for saying and doing horrid evil things. Yet attacking religion in general is deeply offensive to me. I consider myself religious, and I know other TTFers who do as well. Religion can be, and has been, a impetus for good.

Say what you want about the "Christian" right's views on abortion, homosexuality, and sex in general, but please do not dismiss religious beliefs simply because they are religious.

Anonymous said "Actually, the truth of the revealed knowledge in the Bible is obvious. To disbelieve it is willful. You have to try not to.".

LOL, anonymous, I might have been willing to consider that if I hadn't read the bible, but I have and its outrageously silly and unbelievable. Seems to me you couldn't have read it yourself or you'd know better than to make such a statement. Any book that says the sun moves around the earth and can stop in the sky, that stars can fall to the earth and be held in peoples hands, that unicorns exist, that dragons and giants exist, that bats are birds, that rabbits chew their cud, that PI equals exactly three, that the earth is flat and immovable, that an invisible firmament seperates the waters above from the waters below, that a man with no experience built an arc that held 100s of thousands of animals, that there was a global flood, that the earth is 6000 years old and created in 6 days, that insects have 4 legs, that some birds have four legs, and lunacy after lunacy is something you have to go far far out of your way to believe. You have to be either ignorant or in serious denial to believe the bible is revealed truth.

In the end the only evidence for it is easily forgeable words on paper, words that are no more believable than the Koran, or Hinduisms holy text. You have no valid reason to believe in Christianity over those other religions.

Andrew, ideas don't deserve respect just because they are religious. All ideas are open to the scrutiny of science, religion doesn't get a free pass merely because its religious. If I said I believed in Zeus or Apollo or Leprechauns you'd think that rather silly and yet what is the difference between belief in them and Yahweh?

Well, for one thing, the overwhelming numbers of people who have and still do believe in the God of Abraham.

Another is the pivotal and decisive role such belief has played in history of the world.

I'll take your word that you've read it, Randi. The comprehension is another thing. At various times, you've try to make a case from scripture for such preposterous ideas as Jesus is gay or anti-semitic. Who can take your take seriously?

Anonymous said ""yet what is the difference between belief in them and Yahweh?"

Well, for one thing, the overwhelming numbers of people who have and still do believe in the God of Abraham."

That's irrelevant. The nature of religions is that large numbers of people believe in them for thousands of years and then the religions are discarded. The abrahamic religions are simply appeared later and have yet to be discarded. They will be just like the belief in the sun god, and Zeus and Apollo were. Just because lots of people claim to believe something doesn't make it true. At one time most people believed the sun revolved around the earth - didn't make it true.

Once again, there is no rational reason to believe in the Christian god and not in Zeus, Apollo, or leprechauns.

And that Jesus was gay and anti-semetic is supported by the Christian holy texts as much as any other idea.